Fron Scott Miller of CBS Sports:
In case you missed the memo, here it is: Major league baseball is setting up computer stations near the dugouts and is encouraging players to Tweet and Facebook upon exiting the game.
The idea came from Arizona last summer, when players were allowed to tweet during the Home Run Derby, and baseball deemed it a smash hit.
Too much time in the desert without enough water, and now look what happens.
"At its core, baseball is a social activity, so it's natural that social media has become such a huge part of how fans enjoy the game today," Tim Brosnan, an MLB executive vice-president, said in a statement several days ago. "This initiative will bring fans closer than ever to their favorite players, resulting in what will no doubt be the most 'social' event in baseball history."
The whole "This Time It Counts" thing?
The effort to make the All-Star Game serious and meaningful?
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If you're going to tie this game to the ultimate competition, the World Series, then you absolutely can't treat this game as a 140-character mid-summer dip in the pool.
Here's the thing: A whole lot of people have hated the idea of attaching the World Series home-field prize to the All-Star Game ever since Commissioner Bud Selig introduced it within hours after the waterlogged fiasco that was the All-Star Game tie in Milwaukee in 2002.
Time was, Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio played all nine innings at the All-Star Game (Williams did so in 1941, the year he hit .406).
In today's touchy-feely world, Williams would get his prerequisite two All-Star at-bats and then Skip would send Mario Mendoza up to bat for him in the fifth.
That's what I thought we'd be getting away from when Selig unilaterally attempted to re-inject the All-Star Game with meaning by decreeing that the winning league would get World Series home-field advantage. Good for him, I thought. People often criticize Selig for being too wishy-washy, or too slow to move. Well, he wasn't in this case, and I've always applauded him for it.
It absolutely was worth the effort to make -- or keep -- the All-Star Game relevant.
Put this on Facebook: Baseball, at this point, should just return to each league getting World Series home-field advantage in alternate years and be done with the myth of "This Time It Counts." I'd tweet that, but it's too many characters.
lol I'm guessin Josh will be a starter. Meaning, he'll be long gone by the time the 9th inning rolls around. I can't help but laugh whenever I read that Bud Selig pawns himself off as a baseball purist. But this game has been destroyed by the players, so take it for what it's worth.
I guess it gives the players something to do once they are removed from the game.
As long as it's not during the regular season, I don't see it as that big of a deal.
Here's my theory. And I have no doubt it can be argued. Money has destroyed the competition in the all-star game.
Once the players starting making too much money, both players and management became more concerned about injury than the outcome of the game. After all, it's always been a game who's outcome is inconsequential to the season. But now you have to somehow protect huge financial investments. Which also includes the players, since their health is a factor in future contracts. Also, a player making more money than his next generation can spend is less motivated in a meaningless game. Just my opinion.
Certainly a lot of truth to that.
Just take the WS home field advantage out of the equation and I'll be happy. Fans will still buy tickets and TV will pay handsomely to broadcast it. Just look at the NBA. That extravaganza draws 80,000 fans and millions more on TV just to watch silly competitions and a game where all the players shoot everytime they get their hands on the ball.
IMO, there should never be anything relevant about a game that is purely a showcase of talent and a media event.
The old system of alternating between league for home field advantage makes no more sense to me, either. You might as well draw straws.
The only system that would make sense to me would be where the rep from each league in the WS with the best record has the advantage. At least a team might still be interested in winning if they have a 10 game lead in their division and their seeding pretty well locked up if they knew that your final record could count for home field in the WS
A pretty good ROI, I'd say.
From MLB Trade Rumors:
"FRIDAY: The O'Malley group has been selected to purchase the Padres, reports Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports (on Twitter). They will pay $800MM total, including $200MM for a portion of the team's equity in FOX Sports San Diego.
Late last month we heard that Steve Cohen dropped out of the bidding once the price climbed that high, so the O'Malleys have been expected to land the team for the last few weeks now. Current owner John Moores acquired the franchise back in 1994 for approximately $80MM."
Wasn't the Rangers sale for something like $600MM? Now the Padres are going for $800? Wow!